4th BSA (2014): Transport amphorae from Dodoparon: Tracing commercial routes in Late Antique Bulgaria

The site of Dodoparon lies within the Yambol Region of south-eastern Bulgaria. It is situated on the Manastirski Highlands about 20 km from the River Tundzha. The site was occupied during three distinct periods, from the 8th c. BC until 6th c. AD. In the central part of the settlement a single house was excavated (Bakardzhiev, 2011). This house was destroyed between years 574 and 587 AD, most likely by the Avars attacking the South Eastern Balkan peninsula (Velkov, 1983) In the destruction layer about 50 vessels were found, including amphorae of type Kuzmanov XIX (also known as Late Roman Amphorae 2, LR 2) and containers of Kuzmanov XIV (Kuzmanov, 1985, Tušlová, forthcoming).

In this research a total of 20 amphora fragments were analysed. These amphorae consisted of Kuzmanov XIX, recognisable from its globular body and the parallel grooving occurring in the upper part of the body, and Kuzmanov XIV, characterised by a cylindrical body grooved by regularly spaced ridges, rounded base and small dimensions. Materials were studied through the application of an integrated approach of petrographic analysis and portable X-Ray Fluorescence, in order to provide useful comparative material for further investigations applied to a complex material such as transport amphorae, especially in the area of southern Bulgaria.

Right: Map with the site of Dodoparon and Yumbol region, Bulgaria. Bottom: photo of the house where materials were recovered. Left and above: drawings and photo of amphora type Kuzmanov XIX. Right: photo a drawing of amphora type Kuzmanov XIV.

-Petrographic analysis (Optical Microscopy, OM): mineralogical and technological characterisation of the ceramic paste and raw materials provenance -portable X-Ray Fluorescence (pXRF): chemical characterisation of the ceramic products and statistical treatment of the data with comparison of the petrographic analysis

The petrographic analysis of the amphora fragments revealed four different petrographic groups. Fabric 1 is characterised by polycrystalline quartz and muscovite and rarely fragment of volcanic rocks; fabric 2 by abundant fragments of volcanic rocks, chert, quartz and clay pellets; fabric 3 is very similar to fabric 2 but with a low abundance of fragments of volcanic rocks and chert. Finally, fabric 4, which is composed by Kuzmanov XIV fragments, it is characterised by fragments of sedimentary rocks (sand and chert). It is noticeable that Fabrics 1, 2 and 3 are very similar to each other and are characteristic of the amphora type Kuzmanov XIX. The occurrence of volcanic inclusions might help to confirm the possible production centres of Kuzmanov XIX across the Mediterranean, in places such as Chios, Argolid, Knidos, and the Bodrum region or Histria in the Black Sea (Williams, 1982; Bjelejac 1996; Opait 2004). Additionally, the provenance of the Kuzmanov XIV amphorae could be related to a geological environment with sedimentary rocks, which are very common in both the Dobrudzha province and in the Crimea peninsula (Kuzmanov, 1985).

Results:

Petrographic and chemical analyses

The chemical analyses were performed at the GoetheUniversität in Frankfurt am Main with the employment of the portable X-Ray Fluorescence instrument Thermo Scientific Niton XL3t. The specifications of this machine and the calibration method can be found in Helfert et al. 2011.

1) i) Figures: 1) Loading plot of the , 2) PCA, 3) biplot of the abundances of Cr against Zr.

3)

ii)

Figures: i) Fabric group 1 (5x, XP), ii) Fabric group 2, (5x, PPL) iii) Fabric group 3 (5x, XP), iv) Fabric group 4 (5x, XP).

iii)

iv)

2)

The results of chemical analysis match with the results of petrographic analysis. The samples plot (Figures 1, 2 and 3) in four different groups which respectively comprises samples belonging to fabric 1, fabric 2, fabric 3, and finally fabric 4. Samples belonging to petrographic group 4 (Kuzmanov XIV) present a significantly different chemical profile in comparison to samples from petrographic groups 1, 2 and 3. In particular the content of SiO2 and K2O is higher in petrographic group 4. Nevertheless, there are some differences between groups 1, 2 and 3: petrographic group 1 is characterised by higher content of Ba, Zr, Sr; petrographic group 2 has an higher content of Cr and Zr, while petrographic group 3 is characterised by a lower content of K2O, Zn and Rb.

Bibliography Overall, the similarities that characterised fabric groups 1, 2 and 3 could lead to the attribution of the amphora type Kuzmanov XIX (LR 2) to a unique production centre which was exploiting different clay sources rich in chert and volcanic material. Comparing the mineralogical associations, characterising the amphora type Kuzmanov XIX, with the local geology of these areas, the most likely production centre for these amphorae was the Bodrum peninsula, characterised by andesite, ignimbrite and monzonitic lava flow. Chios and the southern Bulgarian coastline on the Black Sea (Williams, 1982; Riley, 1982) cannot be ruled out due to the presence of andesitic, trachytic and granitic outcrops. Whereas, the amphora type Kuzmanov XIV were both clearly produced in a different production centre which was exploiting clay sources rich in sedimentary materials which might be located in the Dobrudzha province or in the Crimea peninsula. The main aim of this work was to adopt an integrated approach of analyses in order to provide comparative materials in the study of transport amphorae from an archaeometric point of view.

Acknowledgments The project ‘Documentation of Roman Pottery from Selected Areas of Roman Province Thrace and Moesia Inferior’ was made possible by Grant Agency of Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague. The documentation itself was made possible thanks to Stefan Bakardzhiev, the director of the Regional Historical Museum in Yambol and the supervisor of the excavation at Dodoparon.

Bakardzhiev, S.O. 2011: Archeologicheski prouchvaniya na ksnoantichnata krepost v m. ‘Gradishteto’, s. Goljam Manastir, oblast Yambol. In: Gurova, M. (ed.): Archeologicheski otkritiya i razkopki prez 2010 g. Sofiya, 368–370. Bjelajac, L., 1996, Amfore Gornjo Mezijskog Podunavlja, Arheološki Institut Beograd, Posebna Izdanja 30 Helfert, M., Mecking, O., Lang, F. and von Kaenel, H.M. 2011: "Neue Perspektiven für die Keramikanalytik. Zur Evaluation der portablen energiedispersiven Röntgenfluoreszenzanalyse (P-ED-RFA) als neues Verfahren für die geochemische Analyse von Keramik in der Archäologie", Frankfurter elektronische Rundschau zur Altertumskunde 14, 1-30. Kuzmanov, G. 1985: Rannovizantiyska keramika ot Trakiya i Dakiya (IV – nachaloto na VII v.), Razkopki i prouchvaniya XIII. Sofiya. Opait, A., 2004: The Eastern Mediterranean Amphorae in the Province of Scythia. In Eiring, J., Lund J., (eds) Transport Amphorae and Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean, Actes of the International Colloquium at the Danish Institute at Athens, September 26-29, 2012.

Riley, J.A., 1982: New light on relations between the Eastern Mediterranean and Carthage in the Vandal and Byzantine periods: the evidence from the University of Michigan excavations. In Actes du Colloque sur la Céramique Antique (Cartago 1980) CEDAC, Carthage Dossiers 1, Tunis, 111-122 Tušlová, P., forthcoming: “Late Roman Amphorae and Dolia from the 6th Century AD House at the Site of Dodoparon in South-Eastern Bulgaria”. In: Late Roman Coarse Wares, Cooking Wares and Amphorae in the Mediterranean: Archaeology and Archaeometry. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, Oxford. 11pp. and 2 plates Velkov, V. 1983: The Tracian city of Cabyle. In: Poulter A.G. (ed.): Ancient Bulgaria, Papers presented to the International Symposium on the Ancient History and Archaeology of Bulgaria, University of Nottingham, 1981, Part 1. Nottingham, 233-238 Williams, D.F., 1982: The petrology of certain byzantine amphorae: some suggestions as to origins. In Actes du Colloque sur la Cerámique Antique (Cartago, juin 1980) CEDAC, Carthage Dossiers 1, Tunis, 99-107.